TUC Fund Managers Survey 2009

TUC Fund Manager Voting Survey 2009

Download the full survey (PDF)

Executive summary

This is the TUC's seventh annual fund manager voting survey. The survey is intended to give trustees information on how various fund managers exercise voting rights in relation to controversial issues at company AGMs, and an insight into voting and engagement processes. We intend to repeat it on an annual basis.

The TUC is concerned by the industry's lack of engagement with our research. The number of organisations participating in the survey has fallen for the third consecutive year. Organisations which report publicly or are willing to participate in the survey demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability. Therefore the decreasing participation in the survey must raise concerns about the industry's commitment to openness.

The voting data obtained demonstrates that there is a clear divergence in investor approaches to ownership, with some evidently far less willing than others to oppose management. The striking differences in investors' use of shareholder voting rights, which would not be apparent from their corporate governance policies, is one of the main reasons why the TUC believes that voting data should be in the public domain. The TUC will continue to lobby strongly for mandatory disclosure.

The second section of the survey looks at processes and policies. There are some interesting findings in this year's survey. For example, many respondents feel that there is growing interest from their clients in their voting and engagement activity. It also appears that this is becoming formalised, with a number of managers stating that Requests for Proposals (RFPs) increasingly require information on this aspect of their activities.

In terms of the issues over which investors say they are most likely to engage and potentially vote against management, it is clear that remuneration dominates, and this is confirmed by the voting data supplied. Turning to corporate social responsibility factors, it appears that many investors do not have specific policies on labour issues.

Although almost three quarters of respondents make some voting data available there are considerable variations in the level of disclosure. In addition some investors which do not disclose do not provide a statement explaining their lack of disclosure, as recommended by the Institutional Shareholders Committee.